On 27/08/2023 12:42, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 27/08/2023 02:58, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> Allow using interrupts-extended, which is a preferred form of interrupts >>> specification compared to the interrupt-parrent + interrupts pair. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml | 10 +++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml >>> index 7fe3875a5996..33d9615e63c8 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml >>> @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ properties: >>> interrupts: >>> maxItems: 1 >>> >>> + interrupts-extended: >>> + maxItems: 1 >> >> The entire patch is not needed. At least should not be needed. What >> problem are you trying to solve here? > > The main problem is the next chunk, which (currently) explicitly > requires `interrupts' property. My goal is to allow > `interrupts-extended' in addition to `interrupts'. They are allowed. Why do you think they aren't? That's why I don't understand what real problem is here. Best regards, Krzysztof
